I agree with their conclusion that AD wouldn't beat Bolt, but the following is just lazy:

"Several years of dedicated football training later, he recorded a 4.38 second 40-yard dash at the 2007 NFL combine, a time that roughly converts to about 11.98 seconds for 100 meters. Had he run that time in this year's Olympic final, he would have finished more than two full seconds behind Bolt, and just barely ahead of former world record-holder Asafa Powell, who limped to an eighth place finish in 11.99 seconds after suffering a groin injury. To find an Olympiad where Peterson's time would have earned him the gold, you'd have to go back to 1896, where Thomas Burke broke the tape in 12 seconds flat."

I know their numbers are based on assuming the same average speed for 100m that Peterson ran for 40 yds., but do they not understand that is not a "rough conversion"? I am sure AD can run a faster time than a mediocre JV high school sprinter.

Many people including us think it's a poor conversion to say the least.

Here is a great email we got. Not sure if he wants his name out there so I'll leave it anonymous for now.

An LRC visitor emailed:As a collegiate track coach that has worked with more than my fair share of football athletes I'm absolutely appalled that the WSJ would publish a statement assuming that 4.38 converts to 11.98.

11.98? At 30 years old and with absolutely no training I managed to run 11.56 in a 100m dash during a decathlon this summer. To state that Adrian Peterson, based on his 40 yd dash time, wouldn't be able to out run me is absolutely ludicrous.

As people that like track and field you should be ripping the WSJ for allowing this to go to print. Jeff Demps supposedly ran 4.26 in the 40 yd and he's broken the 10 second barrier by running 9.96. This article is based on conjecture and lacks any factual or scientific basis.

Granted Adrian would need to lose some of the mass that he has put on to be a successful back in the NFL but let's not support the ridiculous comments that the WSJ has made. I expect a reputable web site like letsrun.com to call it like it is. I expect some sort of change to the main web site noting that who ever wrote the article for the WSJ is a moron.

That email inspired me to contact that Wall Street Journal as we know a few people there as they've quoted us in the past. My email to them read in part:

In today's Journal, you wrote that Adrian Peterson "recorded a 4.38 second 40-yard dash at the 2007 NFL combine, a time that roughly converts to about 11.98 seconds for 100 meters."

That statement is simply not true. A 4.38 40-yard dash time doesn't convert to 11.98 seconds. If someone ran 100 meters at the same pace as a 4.38 40 yard dash, they would run 11.98 seconds but that's not nearly the same thing as "converts to" as it ignores the fact that the first three 10 meter segments of a 100 meter dash are by far the slowest.

40 yards is 36.576 meters. When Usain Bolt ran his world record of 9.69 at the Beijing Olympics, his opening four 10 meter splits have been estimated to have taken 1.85, 1.02, .91 seconds and .87 seconds according to speedendurance.com, meaning that he passed 30 meters in 3.78 seconds and 40 meters in 4.65 seconds. Assuming he ran the same speed between 30 and 40 meters (which isn't true as he's still accelerating), he would have passed 40 yards or 36.576 meters in 4.44 seconds - some .06 seconds behind the 4.38 time recorded by Peterson. In reality, because he's still accelerating, Bolt might have been a tiny bit slower than that.

Admittedly, since NFL 40 times don't use fully automatic timing (FAT) on the start (which adds .24 seconds) and the timer reacts to the runner starting (adding even more time), NFL 40 times are very generous to the runner and in reality much faster than what would be recorded in a track and field race. In reality, Peterson would be behind Bolt at 40 yards, but Peterson's is much better than an 11.98 100 meter sprinter.

Since there is no FAT at the start and the starter reacts to the runner and not vice versa, comparing 40 yard times really isn't a scientific process at all, but consider this.

The Oakland Raiders Jacoby Ford was a 10.01 guy in college. His 40 yard time was 4.28.

Jeff Demps, who won 4 individual NCAA titles for Florida and is a 9.96 man and ran on America's 4 x 100 American record team this summer in London, recorded a best 40-yard dash time of 4.18 seconds in 2012 before signing with the Patriots (http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=82451&draftyear=2012&genpos=RB).

Peterson isn't quite in their league but he does have some bragging rights.

Justin Gatlin, who once had a drug induced world record in the 100 meters and who won the bronze at this summer's Olympics, ran a 40-yard dash during an NFL tryout while serving his doping ban in 2008. His time? 4.42 seconds (http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2423085).

crazy person

RE: Does the WSJ not do any research? 1/3/2013 6:09PM - in reply to rojo

true. It is like when Wilt Chamberlain said he could defeat Mr. Ali if they would get into the ring. A reporter asked Ali what would happen if he got the chance to take on Mr. Chamberlain. Ali: "timberrrrr".

beenwaiting4yearsandYEARS

RE: Does the WSJ not do any research? 1/3/2013 6:47PM - in reply to Jon Ulm

The discussion here is the fact that the numbers that the WSJ posted are absolutely incorrect. I'm blown away that any one would be confortable with the numbers that they posted. Stop speculating what AP could run (not AD) and take note that there are multiple people in the NFL who, with the same training as Bolt, could easily break 10 seconds in the 100m. I'm not saying that any of them could beat him but I am saying that because they train for football they are at a distinct disadvantage.

I competed with the return guy from the Detroit Lions (yes he has struggled of late) when I was in college. He ran 6.75 in the 60m dash but could only manage a 10.8 in the 100m dash. Suffice to say that his 60m dash time was far superior to this 100m time. I would imagine that Bolt might struggle against a few of these people that are superior over 40-60m.

In closing I had an athlete that played football for me that ran 6.82 and ran 10.52 in the 100m dash in 39 degree weather in rain at the end of the year. I would guess that in great weather and absent the grueling, freezing headwind he would have been able to run in the mid 10.40. He was no Adrian Peterson. I'm still guessing that Adrian, with some training (at least 2-3 months) would be able to put up some 10.3 or 10.2 times. I do this for a job so consider me the expert in the current field unlike all of you distance runners who think strength equals speed. Not when it comes to sprinting. Look at what Mo Farah did in the 100m dash. Absolute embarrassment. Power always wins when the distance is short!

And to clarify, I wrote the aforementioned email.

Mr. V

The Stache

RE: Does the WSJ not do any research? 1/3/2013 10:48PM - in reply to Mr. V

Mr. V, I don't think anyone here is arguing with you. We all agree that Peterson would probably be much faster than 11.98, but that he is a football player who trains for that, not for sprinting 100m. So, there really is no need to insult distance runners specifically about this.On the other hand, we should maybe take you to task for calling Letsrun.com a respectable website. Hahahaha. Just kidding.Thanks for sending the email above.

drosenke

RE: Does the WSJ not do any research? 1/4/2013 2:24AM - in reply to rjnyszf

I can tell you this:I'm a 100m man, straight up. Minimal speed endurance, lots of power and top end, much like a football player. Here are my bests:40yd: 4.36 (timing lights)100m: 10.5360m: 6.7930m: 3.68 (timing lights)

The only conceivable way Petersen runs 11.98 is if he has freak power to weight ratio and just lumbers to a ridiculous 40, then completely gasses because he's 300 pounds. Since we know this not to be the case, the claim of 11.98 is ludicrous.

drosenke

RE: Does the WSJ not do any research? 1/4/2013 2:26AM - in reply to drosenke

Looking at it from the opposite direction, Usain Bolt's 40m split when he ran 9.58 was 4.65 including reaction time which is about 4.34 through 40 yards. So the difference in 40-yard performance between the two is essentially whatever factor you want to use for the differences between FAT timing and whatever timing procedure is used in the NFL combine. That's no small difference, but Peterson likely could have been at least a national caliber sprinter had he chosen to go that route.

times

RE: Does the WSJ not do any research? 1/4/2013 10:38AM - in reply to Citizen Runner

Citizen Runner wrote:Looking at it from the opposite direction, Usain Bolt's 40m split when he ran 9.58 was 4.65 including reaction time which is about 4.34 through 40 yards.

times wrote:Why do you disagree with Rojo's calculation of 4.44? I thought his math was pretty solid.

The honest answer is that I didn't read all of Rojo's post, but I followed the same procedure he describes. However, I think he has an arithmetic error in his calculation. 3.78 seconds through 30 meters looks right, but assuming constant speed through the 30-40m segment gives 6.576m/10m*0.87s = 0.57 seconds. So 3.78+0.57 = 4.35 seconds through 36.576m (40 yards). For what it's worth, the meters to inches conversion I used off the top of my head was also slightly off which is how I came up with 4.34 seconds previously.

None of which changes the general result which is that while Bolt is significantly faster, Peterson is pretty damn fast.

times

RE: Does the WSJ not do any research? 1/4/2013 11:47AM - in reply to Citizen Runner